Conversations in the Spirit are now one of the defining features of the modern Church. They have a long lineage, especially within religious congregations.

Their approaches contain some variations, but it is the Ignatian version used within the Society of Jesus which has largely been adopted.

These conversations have become the prevailing characterisation of what synodality, that great reforming idea proposed and popularised by Pope Francis, means in practice.

These conversations are often summed up in popular explanations within the church as ‘walking together’.

An attractive way forward

The practice is admirable, though it should not be immune from critique.

In the modern world, so damaged by loud authoritarianism, growing reliance on social media, and toxic lack of communication with one another, such spiritual conversations, based on quiet self-reflection, structured active listening and genuine efforts at mutual understanding, are an attractive way forward.

They also have their equivalent outside the religious world in progressive movements.

Within the Church, hamstrung by hierarchy and divided by institutionalised preference for the ordained over the non-ordained, conversations in the Spirit as envisaged by Popes Francis and Leo, have much to recommend them on a journey towards healing and building fresh relationships.

Their aim is discernment of the Spirit in our lives. They are a soothing balm when conducted in a prayerful environment.

From means to end

But there is always a downside. Such conversations have their limitations.

Conversations in the Spirit should be primarily a methodology to put synodality or co-responsibility into practice. As explained in my own diocese, they are ‘an engagement strategy’.

They are not an ultimate goal. Yet that is what they have become in many parts of the Church.

They have gone from a means to an end in themselves. They have become a limited approach because they do not concentrate on outcomes.

Remarkably, in some church explanations ‘tangible outcomes’ are even seen as a weakness in the lay mindset.

This means that such types of conversations are far removed from co-responsibility.

Hard to get right

A critical starting point is the realisation that the best conversations in the Spirit are difficult to achieve.

They rely on good preparation; effective facilitation; plenty of time; and repetition among a stable group of equal participants.

Such ingredients are often absent despite their presence in synodal training programs.

Furthermore, they can be manipulated to become a veil for business as usual and, rather than participation, the continuation of hierarchical practices.

Marks of good practice

There are several key indicators of good practice. Co-responsibility should be embedded in all of them.

Who attends and how are they selected? Who sets the agenda and writes the preparatory papers?

Who writes the report? Who is responsible for subsequent action and accountability?

Rather than the feel-good notion of ‘walking together’ which frequently dilutes the central goal of co-responsibility, synodality should be better characterised as ‘deciding together’ or ‘sharing responsibility’.

Synodality is more than just the faithful meeting at small circular tables to discuss someone else’s agenda.

If only it was that easy.

• John Warhurst is Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University in Canberra and a Director of the lay Catholic peak organisation, the Council of Australasian Catholics.